Hard to judge without context.
First, as the others have pointed out, there's nothing wrong with the first sentence. If you revised it like this, I trust you have stylistic reasons I have no access to. It could be more consistent with the general style, or it should stand out more than it does and has to transform from a measure of objectivity to a blur of subjectivity.
Second, whether you're successful or not depends on how you continue, and what comes before. A paragraph reads different in context than it does here, in isolation.
Third, we have reference to: sun, moon, and rain. This is confusing. The confusion may be deliberate, to be resolved later; or the confusion my arise from ignorance of what should have been read before. For example, if I, as a reader, had witnessed the - I suppose - car accident, I'd already have a good idea of the setting, which would shape my reading of the paragraph (for example, knowing setting and character, I might automatically parse this as an inner confusion of perception and memory).
The two texts are not equivalent. The second one is confusing, out of context.
So, here's what I think is going on:
Character looks at the sun, has a visual bout of memory, returns to the present, moans.
You do not mark the memory as different, so it can be hard to make out the borders. For example, you could have used the simple sentence structure for the "action", but fragments for the memory:
Quote:
|
The sliver of sun burned a brilliant yellow. It turned a pale white, glassy. A sliver of glass, underfoot. Thrown from the windshield. Reflecting the moon. Blood and rain dripping upon it. He looked at the twisted carnage around him. He moaned.
|
There are other ways to set off memory, using grammar. You don't have to do this; perhaps, I'm already used to thinking in the terms you set, or you'll do that again and again, so I'll be more careful when reading. In isolation it's not clear, though. (You'll notice that I also switched the windshield-throwing and reflecting around. That's because "thrown from the windshield" belongs to "underfoot" [because-relationship], and I see no reason why you should seperate the clauses and risk that your reader thinks the moon is reflected from the windshield. Minor point, though.)
Another thing: "He looked at the twisted carnage around him." Now you're getting abstract again: a style that invokes the sentence you have revised. I suggest:
"He looked around. He moaned."
Either the readers already knows about the "twisted carnage", or they'll know shortly. I find, they're chep effect words.
Of course, I don't know if I read this correctly. The above is based on my best guess.
